Stamford, Greenwich mooring plan withdrawn after public outcry

A barge is photograph on Oct. 9, 2019 docked at O&G Stamford Sand and Stone Yard.

Photo: Matthew Brown / Hearst Connecticut Media

STAMFORD — A controversial plan that would have introduced large sand-and-gravel-laden barges into Long Island Sound less than a mile off Stamford and Greenwich has been scrapped, according to numerous sources.

The proposal, from New Jersey-based Weeks Marine, was not yet submitted officially to the state, but would have installed a commercial mooring in Stamford waters where the company could park barges while they waited for tugboat transport into O&G Industries, which runs asphalt, concrete and other operations in Stamford Harbor.

Residents and local officials have been vocal in their opposition to the plan, saying it would ruin recreational boating in the area and create a hazard for people on the water and shellfish beds. Among opponents’ concerns was that barges could get loose, which has happened in the area in the past.

Weeks was set to present its plan at the Tuesday meeting of the Stamford Harbor Management & Shellfish Commission, but the item is no longer on the agenda.

The company first brought up the idea of a new mooring earlier this year, when it proposed putting one less than half a mile from Greenwich’s Rocky Point back in May. Weeks ended up scrapping that plan after backlash from residents from Rocky Point and Stamford’s Dolphin Cove.

On Wednesday, state Rep. Stephen Meskers, D-150th, whose district covers the Greenwich shoreline, confirmed that he had been told the application would not go forward.

“What’s clear is that there is a problem with the location of this mooring,” Meskers said. “There needs to be a spot that is environmentally, navigationally and recreationally workable.”

Meskers said Weeks Marine still has the ability to apply for the mooring in November and he is holding off declaring a victory until he sees where the company chooses to go.

“Until I hear where they are going to try and locate this mooring, I will remain vigilant and concerned about it,” said Meskers, who added that he, like many others, objected to a commercial mooring so close to an estuary in Long Island Sound.

The pressure to withdraw the proposal came from many sources.

Meskers said he has spoken to Gov. Ned Lamont and U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, both of whom are Greenwich residents, as well as Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Commissioner Katie Dykes, and had received “excellent feedback” in response to the concerns that he and other residents had raised.

Calls to DEEP, which has regulatory power to approve or deny a mooring application, and Weeks were not returned Wednesday.

Chris Franco, the president of the Greenwich Point Conservancy, said he was “horrified” when he learned of Weeks’ plans.

“Its such a sensitive area,” he said. “There are shellfish beds throughout that entire area.”

A coalition of concerned residents, led by the Greenwich Point Conservancy and the Rocky Point Club, hired attorney Ann Catino of Halloran & Sage in Hartford to guide them in their battle against the plan.

“We just felt that we needed guidance and representation as we go through this process,” Franco said.

Meskers was quick to credit Franco for mobilizing Greenwich’s response to the mooring. He called the work of Franco and the Greenwich Point Conservancy “laudable.”

Bill Kelly, president of the Rocky Point Club, said he was thrilled with the news of Weeks scraping its latest plan.

“It’s just a testament to the residents of Old Greenwich and Riverside that they could unite on such a very important matter,” he said.

It was unclear Wednesday if Weeks would pursue a different location for a mooring, but one option could be to install one inside the Stamford Harbor breakwater, as brought up at a public meeting on the proposal Monday night. There is currently a commercial mooring in that section of the harbor, owned by Buchanan Marine, based out of New Haven, which also transports barges to and from Stamford.

Some local officials have doubted there is another location of sufficient depth within the breakwater.